ÿWPCI …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ U>AU *B)©DCÒ AM Bb VŠ D3àv~vÓ‘ 0@d AO¤Æó 0D¹ D/ý B,˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ÕÖDרEÙÚÛDÜDÝÞÓ€Ô¡¨ ô½¬A"|xç((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌMay€7,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó LÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔEffective€July€1,€1996,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„104(c)(2)€was€amended€toÏà0 àinclude€the€following€sentencing€alternative:€ð ðpayment€of€restitution€to€the€victim€or€victims€eitherÏalone€or€in€addition€to€any€other€sentence€authorized€by€this€subsection.ðð€€The€Defendant€in€theÏcase€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€was€convicted€and€sentenced€prior€to€the€enactment€of€this€amendment.Ì'''''ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€"ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€<üXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€&(%A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9603„CR„00090Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSUMNER€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JANE€WHEATCRAFTó óÌò òTIMOTHY€ALANó óÏà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òJUDGEà àà àà àà àà àLOCKRIDGE,à àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Sentencing)ò òÌó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€SUMNER€COUNTYó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌNANCY€B.€MYERSà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ117€East€Main€StreetÌGallatin,€TN€37066à àà àà àJANIS€L.€TURNERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLAWRENCE€RAY€WHITLEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€DEANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à113€East€Main€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGallatin,€TN€37066ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Ó›à àThis€is€an€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure.€€Pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement,€the€Defendant€enteredÏpleas€of€guilty€to€one€count€of€theft€of€property€over€the€value€of€œfive€hundred›Ïdollars€($500.00)€and€one€count€of€passing€a€forged€check.€€For€these€Class€EÏfelonies,€the€plea€agreement€provided€for€concurrent€sentences€of€two€years€forÏeach€offense,€but€the€two€concurrent€sentences€were€to€be€servedÏconsecutively€to€a€prior€sentence€of€six€years.€€The€plea€agreement€providedÏthat€the€manner€of€service€of€the€two„year€sentences€œwas›€left€to€the€discretion€ofÏthe€trial€judge.ÌÌà àAfter€conducting€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€judge€ordered€that€theÏDefendantððs€two€concurrent€two„year€sentences€be€served€in€the€Department€ofÏCorrection€and€ordered€that€the€Defendant€make€restitution€on€the€forgeryÏconviction€in€the€amount€of€two€hundred€and€ninety€dollars€($290.00).€€OnÏappeal,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€by€ordering€him€to€serveÏhis€sentence€in€the€Department€of€Correction€and€further€erred€by€orderingÏrestitution€in€conjunction€with€a€sentence€of€incarceration.€€We€affirm€the€sentenceÍof€incarceration€ordered€by€the€trial€court€but€we€must€modify€the€sentence€toÏdelete€the€order€of€restitution.ÌÌà àOn€this€appeal,€the€Defendant€primarily€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€orÏabused€her€discretion€in€denying€him€probation,€community€corrections€or€aÏsentence€of€split€confinement.€€Ìà àA€defendant€who€ð ðis€an€especially€mitigated€or€standard€offenderÏconvicted€of€a€Class€C,€D,€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidateÏfor€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€of€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€Our€sentencing€law€also€provides€thatÏð ðconvicted€felons€committing€the€most€severe€offenses,€possessing€criminalÏhistories€evincing€a€clear€disregard€for€the€laws€and€morals€of€society,€andÏevincing€failure€of€past€efforts€at€rehabilitation,€shall€be€given€first€priorityÏregarding€sentences€involving€incarceration.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(5).€ÏThus,€a€defendant€sentenced€to€eight€years€or€less€who€is€not€an€offender€forÏwhom€incarceration€is€a€priority€is€presumed€eligible€for€alternative€sentencingÏunless€sufficient€evidence€rebuts€the€presumption.€€However,€the€act€does€notÏprovide€that€all€offenders€who€meet€the€criteria€are€entitled€to€such€relief;€rather,€itÏrequires€that€sentencing€issues€be€determined€by€the€facts€and€circumstancesÏpresented€in€each€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€ÌÌà àAdditionally,€the€principles€of€sentencing€reflect€that€the€sentence€shouldÏbe€no€greater€than€that€deserved€for€the€offense€committed€and€should€be€theÏleast€severe€measure€necessary€to€achieve€the€purposes€for€which€theÏsentence€is€imposed.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(3)€„€(4).€€The€court€shouldÏalso€consider€the€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment€of€the€defendant€inÏdetermining€the€sentence€alternative.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).€€ÌÌà àThe€Community€Corrections€Act€allows€certain€eligible€offenders€toÏparticipate€in€community„based€alternatives€to€incarceration.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€#XÔððÔ€#ŠÔÏ40„36„103.€€A€defendant€must€first€be€a€suitable€candidate€for€alternativeÏsentencing.€€If€so,€a€defendant€is€then€eligible€for€participation€in€a€communityÏcorrections€program€if€he€also€satisfies€several€minimum€eligibility€criteria€set€forthÏat€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„36„106(a).€€ÌÌà àHowever,€even€though€an€offender€meets€the€requirements€of€eligibility,€theÏAct€does€not€provide€that€the€offender€is€automatically€entitled€to€such€relief.€ÏòòState€v.€Grandberryóó,€803€S.W.2d€706,€707€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.ÏTayloróó,€744€S.W.2d€919,€922€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Rather,€the€statuteÏprovides€that€the€criteria€shall€be€interpreted€as€minimum€standards€to€guide€aÍtrial€courtððs€determination€of€whether€that€offender€is€eligible€for€communityÏcorrections.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(d).€€ÌÌà àWhen€imposing€a€sentence€of€total€confinement,€our€Criminal€SentencingÏReform€Act€mandates€œthat€the›€trial€court€œbase›€its€decision€on€the€considerationsÏset€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„103.€€TheseÏconsiderations€which€militate€against€alternative€sentencing€include:€the€need€toÏprotect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€having€a€long€history€of€criminalÏconduct,€whether€confinement€is€particularly€appropriate€to€effectively€deterÏothers€likely€to€commit€a€similar€offense,€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense,€and€the€need€to€order€confinement€in€cases€in€whichÏless€restrictive€measures€have€often€or€recently€been€unsuccessfully€applied€toÏthe€defendant.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Ô€#XÔððÔ€#ŠÔ€40„35„103(1).€€€€ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€to€grant€probation,€the€judge€must€consider€theÏnature€and€circumstances€of€the€offense,€the€defendantððs€criminal€record,€hisÏbackground€and€social€history,€his€present€condition,€including€his€physical€andÏmental€condition,€the€deterrent€effect€on€other€criminal€activity,€and€the€likelihoodÏthat€probation€is€in€the€best€interests€of€both€the€public€and€the€defendant.€ÏòòStiller€v.€Stateóó,€516€S.W.2d€617,€620€(Tenn.€1974).€€The€burden€is€on€theÍDefendant€to€show€that€the€sentence€he€received€is€improper€and€that€he€isÏentitled€to€probation.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€œÌÌà àWe€first€note€that€as€provided€by€the€plea€agreement,€the€DefendantÏwas€sentenced€as€a€multiple€offender.€€Therefore,€he€did€not€enjoy€theÏpresumption€that€he€was€a€favorable€candidate€for€an€alternative€sentencingÏoption.€€From›€this€record,€we€are€able€to€ascertain€very€little€about€the€factsÏunderlying€the€Defendantððs€convictions€œfor›€theft€œand›€passing€forged€paper.€€TheÏtheft€charge€involved€œa€ð ðhigh€pressure€washerðð€and›€tools.€€The€passing€forgedÏpaper€charge€involved€the€cashing€of€certain€checks.€€The€presentence€reportÏreflects€that€the€Defendant€was€unmarried€and€thirty„one€years€old.€€He€droppedÏout€of€high€school€before€completing€the€twelfth€grade.€€His€employment€historyÏincluded€work€as€a€brick€mason€and€as€a€mechanic.€€He€apparently€has€beenÏsteadily€employed.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€does€have€œa€rather›€extensive€history€of€criminal€conduct.€ÏIn€addition€to€several€traffic€offenses,€he€has€convictions€for€possessing€stolenÏproperty,€at€least€one€felony€drug€conviction,€and€one€felony€conviction€forÏbringing€contraband€into€the€county€jail.€€The€Defendant€was€serving€aÏcommunity€corrections€sentence€at€the€time€he€committed€the€offenses€which€ledÏto€his€convictions€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€The€Defendant€admitted€to€a€longÍhistory€of€marijuana€use.€€The€presentence€report€reflects€that€the€DefendantÏtested€positive€for€marijuana€while€serving€his€community€corrections€sentence.€ÏThe€trial€judge€noted€that€the€Defendant€failed€a€drug€screen€on€the€day€of€theÏsentencing€hearing€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.ÌÌà àBased€on€our€review€of€this€record,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€judgeÏerred€or€abused€her€discretion€in€denying€the€Defendant€an€alternative€sentenceÏto€incarceration.€€We€believe€the€record€supports€the€trial€judgeððs€determinationÏthat€the€Defendantððs€sentence€be€served€with€the€Department€of€Correction.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€judge€erred€when€she€orderedÏhim€to€pay€restitution€in€conjunction€with€a€sentence€of€incarceration.€€AlthoughÏthe€State€argues€that€the€Defendant€agreed€to€pay€restitution€to€the€victims€as€aÏpart€of€the€plea€agreement,€we€do€not€believe€that€the€record€supports€theÏStateððs€position.€€While€it€is€clear€that€the€Defendant€œwas€receptive€to›€restitutionÏif€the€trial€court€allowed€his€sentence€to€be€served€on€probation,€we€do€notÏbelieve€the€Defendant€expressly€agreed€to€the€restitution€as€part€of€the€pleaÏagreement.ÌÌà àWe€note€that€our€Supreme€Court€recently€addressed€this€issue€andÏconcluded€that,€prior€to€the€1996€œamendment›€to€the€sentencing€œlaw× ƒ) ××  ×,›€there€wasÏno€authority€under€which€courts€could€impose€restitution€as€part€of€a€sentence€ofÏincarceration€and€that€restitution€could€therefore€œbe›€imposed€œonly€as›€a€conditionÏof€a€sentence€of€probation.€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€__€S.W.2d€œ__€(Tenn.›€1997).€€WeÏtherefore€œconclude›€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€the€statutory€authority€to€orderÏthe€payment€of€restitution€as€part€of€the€Defendantððs€sentence€of€confinement.ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€modify€the€Defendantððs€sentence€byÏdeleting€the€order€that€he€pay€restitution.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€affirmed.œÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE